Tuesday, March 29, 2016

BREAKING: GM Wins Defense Verdict In 2nd Ignition-Switch Trial

By Cara Salvatore

Law360, New York (March 30, 2016, 11:23 AM ET) -- General Motors on Wednesday won the second bellwether trial in the continuing fight over its defective ignition switches, as a New York federal jury found that GM cars were unreasonably dangerous but did not find that plaintiffs' injuries were caused by their car, a Saturn roadster.

GM attorney Mike Brock cross examination of plaintiff Dionne Spain

The trial, selected by GM as a test of some of the weaker claims in a pool of hundreds of lawsuits, had been closely watched after a first bellwether disintegrated when the plaintiff was accused of lying.

A jury in a New York City trial stemming from the General Motorsignition switch controversy that resulted in millions of recalls ended its first day of deliberations Tuesday without reaching a verdict.

The jury deliberated in Manhattan federal court for more than two hours after hearing a lawyer for a Louisiana man and woman blame a defective ignition switch for a 2014 accident on a New Orleans bridge. A GM lawyer said there was no evidence the ignition switch was to blame.

The trial will be used as a blueprint to define legal boundaries for similar unsettled claims against the automaker, which has issued recalls affecting more than 30 million vehicles since early 2014.

Hundreds of claims remain against the automaker after GM revealed two years ago that it had continued to sell flawed vehicles for more than a decade after discovering an ignition switch defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars.

Under certain conditions, the ignition switch can slip out of the on position, making it difficult to steer or stop as the car stalls. GM says it has fixed the problem.

Plaintiffs' attorney Randall Jackson told jurors there was overwhelming evidence the defect was to blame in the crash.He said a key chain pulled down by the weight of other keys might have pulled it out of position. And he added that testimony that the car turned off during the accident was "all you need to hear." Jackson dismissed GM's counterarguments, saying: "You will find they don't make sense."

General Motors attorney Mike Brock blamed the crash on ice, saying the car's occupants had no serious injuries and nothing deserving of compensation at trial."This accident was not caused by a defective switch," he said. Brock noted that the only damage to the car was scrapes on a bumper.

Lawrence Barthelemy, who rode in co-plaintiff Dionne Spain's vehicle on the rainy evening of their January 2014 crash on the Crescent City Connection bridge in New Orleans, took the witness stand for the first time since the trial began earlier this month to try to explain how the crash had affected his health and quality of life. Spain and Barthelemy claimed the sports car spun out on the bridge after losing its power brakes and power steering when its ignition switch allegedly slipped out of place.

Aryeh L. Kaplan questions plaintiff Lawrence Barthelemy

Barthelemy claimed his back problems since the crash had also added more strain to his already strenuous job supervising the cleaning of barges that he said were larger than the Manhattan courtroom he was testifying in. Kimberly Branscome of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, representing GM, produced a series of post-accident medical reports and fitness test results related to his employment that she argued showed an able, thriving man who not only kept a physically demanding job after the crash, but even managed to earn a lucrative promotion.

Branscome drew particular attention to a physical evaluation in July 2014 that Barthelemy seemed to have aced, allowing him to continue with the job he held at the time as a barge washer for Turn Services LLC, a New Orleans-based company servicing marine industry clients.

"There is a section for floor-to-waist lifting. Do you see that? It says, safe maximum load for dynamic floor-to-waist lift is 65 pounds," Branscome said, referring to a test of a candidate's ability to lift up to a 65-pound weight off the ground."You were asked to perform that test at 50 pounds and 65, and you were capable of performing it at 65, correct?" she said."Correct," Barthelemy conceded."And then, down a little bit lower, you were asked to ambulate with a 65-pound load 600 feet. Do you see that? And you passed that test, correct?" she pressed on."Correct," Barthelemy yielded again.

Wednesday afternoon, on the third day of trial, Spain was cross-examined for almost two hours by GM lawyer Mike Brock of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. But U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman stepped in repeatedly to command yes-or-no answers from Spain as she tried to confront Brock’s shadings with added explanation.

“Have you conveyed to anyone that the lighting conditions on the evening of the accident were dark and that the road conditions were ice?” Brock asked. After an objection that was overruled, Spain replied, “Like I said, I didn't see any ice on the ground. I was only going by what ...”She was then interrupted by Judge Furman.“Just yes or no,” he said.Brock tried again: “I am asking, have you said that the lighting conditions were dark and the road conditions were ice?”Spain hesitated.“Yes or no,” Judge Furman said again.“Yes, I mentioned that,” Spain said.Seconds later, the judge had to prompt her once more for a yes-or-no answer, this time on her previous statements about what was on her keychain at the time of the crash. Those three times were just some of many.

Jurors on Friday also heard the videotaped testimony of some of the engineers who had played a role in tardy and ineffectual investigations within GM that had failed for years to connect defective ignition switches to serious safety problems.

Brian Everest, a supervisor at GM's field performance assessment department whose engineers worked on product liability-related issues, testified in his deposition that he had only heard about the problem of low-torque ignition switches sometime in 2012.

The low torque of the ignition switches is central to their defect, as it makes it easier for the ignition key in defective switches to accidentally be rotated out of place from the "Run" to "Accessory" position. This key rotation can shut off the vehicles' power steering and power brakes, and more seriously, prevent air bags from deploying in major collisions.

“This practice of limiting how engineers can describe situations was one of the factors that allowed this situation to stay down and not get the attention that it needed for such a long time,” former Delphi engineer Steve Loudon told the court. Loudon spent his career in automotive electronics, writing software that controls airbags, among other things. He’s now a frequent expert witness in car-defect cases.

“You’re limiting [engineers] from being as precise and accurate as they could be,” Loudon said.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, March 28, 2016

ILLUSTRATED COURTROOM: BRADFORD BECKERMAN COURT APPREARANCE FOR ASSAULT O...: Bradford Beckerman (left) appears in Manhattan Criminal Court on Wednesday, May 20, 2015. Beckerman was arrested and charged with assault.On Monday, March 16, just before the 1 p.m. court lunch break photographer Jefferson Siegel was standing outside a courtroom door, waiting for a defendant to leave. He was on a court assignment for the Daily News. The defendant left with several people. As the group of 4 or 5 well-dressed, younger-middle-aged people left in a group, one person launched himself at Siegel knocking him down and breaking his collarbone and knocking a tooth loose that eventually came out.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Artists and their Subject. First Place winner: Sarah Almeda,
New Milford High School, Second Place winner: Michaela Lozada, Marine Academy
of Technology and Environmental Science (MATES), and Third Place winner:
Isabelle Wolf, Immaculate Heart Academy, standing with Joseph Garibaldi from Oratory
Prep who was on the New Jersey finalist Mock trial team. The top courtroom
artist winners from the state drew the top two state mock trial teams at the New
Jersey State Mock Trial Final competition at the NJ Law Center in New Brunswick
on March 21.

Chief Judge Stuart Rabner and Micheala Lozada with her drawing of Justice Rabner.

DraftKings, FanDuel to stop
paid contests in NY

artwork by Elizabeth Williams

DraftKings and FanDuel
will stop running paid contests

in New York amid an
ongoing fight to operate in the key market.

Under the New York agreement, DraftKings
and FanDuel will stop paid contests and delay an appeal until September.
However, if state lawmakers pass legislation explicitly allowing and regulating
paid daily fantasy sports, the state's gambling claims will end.

Prior to this agreement Draftkings and
Fanduel had sought a halt of NY AG action pending appeal on March 9th.

In
an afternoon proceeding before Judge Manuel J. Mendez in Manhattan, attorneys
for DraftKings and FanDuel said a complete pause of the action is warranted
while the First Department considers the appeal, since the appeals court will
be addressing core legal and factual issues that will impact the entire case,
such as the reach of New York’s gambling statutes.

“We believe it makes
sense,” DraftKings attorney Randy Mastro of Gibson Dunn told Judge
Mendez. “We believe it would be prudent for this court and all the parties to
have that guidance under the law.”

Schneiderman filed suit against the daily fantasy sports companies in November, alleging the contests were games of chance and thus illegal sports gambling under New York law. The suit was expanded in January to include false advertising claims.

A lawyer for the AG’s office, Justin Wagner, told Judge Mendez that it is high time that DraftKings and FanDuel answer the amended complaint’s allegations of illegal gambling and false advertising, and called for limited discovery to commence.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

In 1969 Howard Brodie, the dean of
courtroom art and revered artist from CBS news, covered the Chicago Seven
trial. He had covered the infamous Jack Ruby trial 5 years prior to this case.

The original eight defendants indicted by the grand jury on March 20,
1969, were Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie
Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale. Seale was eventually severed from the original eight.

The trial of the “Chicago Seven”
began before Judge Julius Hoffman in the fall of 1969. The defendants, including David Dellinger
of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (MOBE); Rennie
Davis and Tom Hayden of MOBE and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS);and
Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman of the Youth International Party (Yippies), were
accused of conspiring to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National
Convention.

Although Bobby Seale of the Black
Panthers was originally a defendant in the trial as well, he angrily denounced
Judge Hoffman as a racist for denying his request for a separate trial. He
wanted to be represented by his own lawyer, who was recovering from surgery at
the time, so he loudly protested by attempting to examine his own witnesses.
Judge Hoffman took the unusual measure of having Seale bound and gagged at the
defendant’s table before eventually separating his trial and sentencing him to
48 months in prison.

Brodie caption says" told me he was on an acid trip"

At the height of the antiwar and civil rights movements, these young leftists had organized protest marches and rock concerts at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. During the event, clashes broke out between the protesters and the police and eventually turned into full-scale rioting, complete with tear gas.

Brodie caption reads: Seale "Cool" Panthers, " Heart" America

Brodie caption reads' " I have seen white men chained and gagged in a Calif court" Seale being removed from the courtroom

The Chicago Seven were indicted for violating the Rap Brown law, which had been tagged onto the Civil Rights Bill earlier that year by conservative senators. The law made it illegal to cross state lines in order to riot or to conspire to use interstate commerce to incite rioting. President Johnson’s attorney general, Ramsey Clark, refused to prosecute the case. The grand jury returned indictments only after President Richard Nixon took office and John Mitchell assumed the office of Attorney General. On March 20, 1969, eight protesters were charged with various federal crimes and eight police officers were charged with civil rights violations.

Brodie caption: Marshals surrounding defendants

Amazing drawing by Brodie, intense situation is captured beautifully. What a master.

Speculation that the jury would be unable to reach a decision proved unfounded. On February 18, 1970, they adjudged Davis, Dellinger, Hayden, Hoffman, and Rubin guilty, while acquitting Froines and Weiner. Two days later Judge Hoffman passed sentence. Each defendant received the maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.A long round of appellate action ensued. It began with the contempt verdicts. On May 11, 1972, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed all of these convictions on grounds that, because Judge Hoffman had been targeted by the attack, due process dictated that he should not sit in judgment on the contempt charges.In November 1972 the appellate court overturned all five incitement to riot convictions, citing numerous errors by Judge Hoffman and the prosecution attorneys. In particular, they denounced Judge Hoffman's "deprecatory and often antagonistic attitude toward the defense." Scale, too, had his conviction overturned.The government elected not to retry the incitement case, but did proceed on the contempt charges, with the result that in November 1973, Dellinger, Kunstler, Hoffman, and Rubin were again convicted. However, Judge Edward Gignoux signaled an end to the whole unsavory affair by deciding that the imposition of further jail sentences was unwarranted.

On Tuesday, I put on a courtroom-sketcher hat. I headed down
to the federal courthouse in Tacoma for the opening statements of State Auditor
Troy Kelley’s trial.

My day as a courtroom sketcher
provided a great opportunity to merge old and new media. I drew on my iPad Air
2 using a Wacom Intuos Creative Stylus and the drawing app ProCreate, which
automatically generated the replay video you can see at the top of this post. I
also brought a regular sketch pad, but I chose to sketch digitally in order to
do live tweets during the trial. The courtroom had wi-fi but I simply relied on
connecting my iPad to my iPhone hotspot to have Internet access.

The defense asked for a mistrial but the judge denied the motion.by Gabriel Campanario

The federal courtroom where I made
these sketches felt very solemn. A space where law rulings are made calls for
that kind of environment. Stone walls, high ceilings and stately wooden
furniture contributed to that feeling of respectability. Technology was
visible, too. Every seat had its own flat screen connected to an even larger
screen located across the jury box. A golden seal with the words United States
District Court, Western District of Washington, appeared on the monitors before
the trial started.

After the trial was adjourned for
the day, I took a few more minutes to flesh out some sketches before emailing
them to the newsroom for the print edition.

US Air Force vet found guilty of trying to join ISIS

A federal jury on Wednesday found an Air Force veteran guilty of trying to join the Islamic State, in one of the first U.S. terror trials involving suspected ISIS ties.

Prosecutors say Tairod Pugh, 48, went to Turkey last year hoping to make his way to Syria to join ISIS.

Defense lawyers say the Neptune, New Jersey man didn't intend to find the terror group a month after he lost his job as an aviation mechanic. But prosecutors say Pugh was preparing to reject the country he had served in the Air Force from 1986 to 1990.

Tairod Pugh and his lawyer seated at defense table by Aggie Kenny

Pugh appeared calm while the verdict was read in the Brooklyn, N.Y. courtroom. He never took the stand during trial testimony.

He faces up to 35 years in prison on the charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS and obstruction of justice.

Last week, an undercover FBI agent posing as an Islamic State sympathizer testified that he was wearing traditional Muslim religious clothing when he sat down next to Pugh at Kennedy Airport last year, in an area where people waited to be cleared to enter the United States after a trip abroad. He said Pugh told him he had been sent back to the U.S. from Egypt.

Tairod Pugh

Pugh with headphones and photo of US Air Force plane

"On more than one occasion, he said he expected to be arrested," the Los Angeles-based agent said, recalling that Pugh seemed nervous whenever a law enforcement person passed by.

The agent testified that Pugh warmed up to him after seeing an Islamic State flag on his Facebook page. The agent said Pugh told him that if he went to Turkey, he should not look pious.

"He said: 'Shave the beard. Wear the pants.' He said the object is to blend in," the agent recalled.

Each student had traveled to her local county courthouse to sketch her school's mock trial team in action during preliminary rounds of the Foundation's Vincent J. Apruzzese High School Mock Trial Competition. Their drawings, which had to be completed during actual court time, were adjudged the best of the 65 entries received from students throughout New Jersey. The six winners will be recognized in a ceremony preceding the mock trial state finals at the New Jersey Law Center on Monday, March 21.

‘I joined the competition to be part of the mock trial process, to learn a lot of new things," said Ms. Almeda, "and I achieved that. So to receive this honor, too-it's like awesome icing on an already awesome cake."

The judges included Foundation president Steven Richman, Esq. and noted courtroom artists Elizabeth Williams and Aggie Kenny, many of whose sketches were recently added to the Library of Congress.

Founded in 1958, the New Jersey State Bar Foundation is the educational and philanthropic arm of the New Jersey State Bar Association. The Bar Foundation's mission is to promote public understanding of the law through free educational programs. Among its activities, the Foundation conducts seminars and conflict resolution training, publishes law-related materials, operates a videotape loan library and speakers bureau, and coordinates elementary, middle and high school mock trial competitions. For more information about the Foundation's programs and publications, and for directions to the Law Center, visit us online at www.njsbf.org or call 1-800-FREE-LAW.

For more information, please contact Cynthia Pellegrino at 732-937-7507 or cpellegrino@njsbf.org.

-NJSBF-

HASH(0x216583d0)HASH(0x22d09440)HASH(0x21a0e060)HASH(0x216583d0)

This message was sent by New Jersey State Bar Foundation, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, NJ 08901

United States of America v. Apple Inc., et al., 12 Civ. 2862 (DLC), was a US antitrust case in which the Court held thatApple Inc. conspired to raise the price of e-books in violation of the Sherman Act.

The suit, filed in April 2012, alleged that Apple Inc. and five book publishing companies conspired to raise and fix the price for electronic books (e-books) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1] The publishers are Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Group, Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Publisher Defendants). Only Apple proceeded to trial while the Publisher Defendants settled their claims.